Asset transformation and the challenges to servitize a utility business model
Introduction
Countries such as Germany and Switzerland aim to realize the low carbon energy transition by reducing the consumption of energy and increasing the share of renewable energies (BFE (Bundesamt für Energie), 2013, BMWi (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie), 2015), which will fundamentally transform power markets (Richter, 2013a, Schleicher-Tappeser, 2012). European energy utility companies (EUCo) are facing serious threats to their established business model (e.g., Eurelectric, 2013). But they are also major stakeholders of the energy system, and thus are expected to “be at the core of the energy transition.” (Apajalahti et al., 2015: 76). By servitizing their business models, they could fulfill this crucial role (Apajalahti et al., 2015, Hannon et al., 2013, European Commission, 2011).
Thus, scholars and managers agree that utilities need to fundamentally innovate their business models (BMs) to overcome their role as commodity suppliers and become service providers for comprehensive energy solutions (Boston Consulting Group, 2011, Duncan, 2010, Klose et al., 2010, PWC, 2013, Richter, 2013a, Richter, 2013b, Schleicher-Tappeser, 2012, Schoettl and Lehmann-Ortega, 2011, Servatius, 2012).
Business model innovation (BMI) has been recognized as a vehicle for corporate transformation and a source for competitive advantage through the development of new ways of creating, delivering and capturing value (Chesbrough, 2010, Richter, 2013a, Schneider and Spieth, 2013, Teece, 2010; Zott et. al., 2011). Servitization represents a specific form of BMI (Maglio and Spohrer, 2013, Nair et al., 2013, Velamuri et al., 2013, Visnjic Kastalli and Van Looy, 2013). It requires the holistic innovation of an organization, wherein it shifts from selling products to selling services or product-service bundles (Baines et al., 2009).
However, BMI, and the servitization of firms, can create significant managerial challenges (Baines et al., 2009, Gebauer et al., 2005, Kindström, 2010). Despite the expected importance of services for utilities, scholars have paid little attention to the challenges of servitizing a utility BM. Scholars have described numerous market barriers related to energy service adaption, such as low energy costs, ambiguous or absent legislative framework, lack or mismatch of financing, perceived business and technical risks, mistrust among actors, and low information levels regarding energy services (Hannon et al., 2013, Marino et al., 2011, Suhonen and Okkonen, 2013, Vine, 2005). However, intra-organizational barriers for the servitization of utilities have been hardly addressed. One exception is Apajalahti et al. (2015), who argued that the unbundling of energy companies and the split of involved business units result in increased complexity for service offering. The literature on servitization indicates significant challenges, but is largely focused on the manufacturing sector, “where product and service differentiation are easily achieved” (Robinson et al., 2002: 164). In the context of capital-intensive1 commodity suppliers, such as electric utilities, even greater challenges can be expected (Robinson et al., 2002): literature on service and servitization highlights for instance the crucial importance of intangible input factors such as workforce, innovative capabilities, and customer orientation (e.g., Baines et al., 2009; Kindström, 2010). These factors have previously played a minor role in the utility sector. Instead, it has been characterized by high capital intensity (e.g., Kleindorfer and Wu, 2003) low personnel intensity (destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt), 2011), low innovation intensity (ZEW (Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH), 2015: 6) and a limited customer orientation, due to the low change rate of electricity customers, for instance in Germany (BDEW, 2014b).
Analyzing the difficulties of servitizing a utility BM requires a close look at each of the BM components, such as the value proposition, the customer interface, the infrastructure, and the revenue model (see Table 1) (Osterwalder, 2004, Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010, Richter, 2013a), as well as the dynamics of their interactions, and the relationship between the status quo and the new BM (Demil and Lecocq, 2010, Zott et al., 2011). These relationships can foster or inhibit the transition; illuminating these relationships may enhance our knowledge on barriers of BMI and the role of the established BM. The research question is thus: What are the distinct attributes of utility and service-oriented BMs? What are the resulting inhibiting and fostering relationships affecting the transition?
First of all, the paper contributes to the discussion of managers and policy makers on the future of utilities, particularly in the context of energy services. It maps the major challenges and discusses implications for managers and policy makers. In particular, it highlights the significant challenges that utilities have to overcome to remain leading stakeholders in a more service-oriented energy landscape. Second, the paper contributes to the literature on BMI barriers, by proposing and introducing asset transformation as a novel concept. Asset transformation captures the change in underlying BM assets and their subsequent challenges, not adequately acknowledged by previous concepts. Therefore, it enhances knowledge on the difficulties of particular BM transitions. Third, this paper adds the case of servitizing a capital-intensive commodity BM to the manufacturing-oriented servitization literature.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines the background, i.e. drivers for servitization in Germany and Switzerland, and introduces relevant literature and the analytical framework. Section 3 specifies the applied methodology. Section 4 displays the empirical findings. Section 5 discusses the results. Section 6 derives the conclusions, and the policy and managerial implications.
Section snippets
Research context: drivers for service-oriented BMI in the power sector
The low carbon energy transition is related to a number of drivers that drive utilities to servitize their BMs. First, many utilities in Europe face a severe crisis of their established BM. European utilities have lost more than half of their one trillion EUR company value since 2008, and stocks performed significantly worse than the market as a whole (MSCI, 2014, Eurelectric, 2013, The Economist, 2013, The Economist, 2013). Eurelectric (European Union of the Electricity Industry) concludes
Methodology
To analyze servitization in utilities, a qualitative and inductive research approach is reasonable in order to broaden the base of knowledge on the topic. Qualitative approaches allow for insights into complex organizational processes (Yin, 2009, Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Analytic induction accommodates existing concepts and theories (Bansal and Roth, 2000, Manning, 1982). The research was conducted in Germany and the Switzerland, due to their commitment to the energy transition and the
Results
The core attributes of the utility and the service BM, as well as the inhibiting or fostering relationships, are depicted in Fig. 2 and explained in the following sections. They are substantiated by representative quotes in Tables 4 (BM attributes), 5 (fostering relationships) and 6 (inhibiting relationships).
Discussion
The following section discusses the three major challenges identified-the value dilemma, asset transformation and simultaneity challenge-against the backdrop of related literature and the contributions of interviewees.
Conclusions
This paper relates to a timely and crucial phenomenon in the context of the low carbon energy transition-the widespread belief that utilities need to servitize their BMs. Knowledge on servitization as a specific type of BMI has been enhanced by adding the case of the capital-intensive electric power sector. The interviews provided valuable insights into the transformation process of utilities, and the major barriers therein. The major challenges consist primarily of the value dilemma (the lack
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank all the utility managers who participated in this study. Moreover, this study benefited from the feedback received from participants of the 14th IAEE European Energy Conference in Rome 2014, and from valuable feedback from Nina Hampl, Gieri Hinnen, and Rolf Wüstenhagen and other scholars, for which the author is very grateful. Finally, the author would like to thank the Nagelschneider Foundation for the generous support of his research.
References (103)
- et al.
From demand side management (DSM) to energy efficiency services: a Finnish case study
Energy Policy
(2015) - et al.
Who invests in renewable electricity production? Empirical evidence and suggestions for further research
Energy Policy
(2013) - et al.
Energy service companies in European countries: current status and a strategy to foster their development
Energy Policy
(2006) Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers
Long. Range Plan.
(2010)- et al.
Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency
Long Range Plan.
(2010) - et al.
Profiting from business model innovation: evidence from Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance
Res. Policy
(2013) - et al.
An empirical typology of energy services based on a well-developed market: France
Energy Policy
(2012) A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy
Ecol. Econ.
(2011)- et al.
An investigation of the relationship between behavioral processes, motivation, investments in the service business and service revenue
Ind. Mark. Manag.
(2007) - et al.
Overcoming the service paradox in manufacturing companies
Eur. Manag. J.
(2005)
UK Local Authority engagement with the Energy Service Company (ESCo) model: key characteristics, benefits, limitations and considerations
Energy Policy.
The co-evolutionary relationship between Energy Service Companies and the UK energy system: implications for a low-carbon transition
Energy Policy
Towards a service-based business model–key aspects for future competitive advantage
Eur. Manag. J.
Going beyond best technology and lowest price: on renewable energy investors’ preference for service-driven business models
Energy Policy
A service science perspective on business model innovation
Ind. Mark. Manag.
A snapshot of the European energy service market in 2010 and policy recommendations to foster a further market development
Energy Policy
Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator's dilemma
Res. Organ. Behav.
A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance
J. Bus. Ventur.
Utilities’ business models for renewable energy: a review
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and renewable energy
Energy Policy
German utilities and distributed PV: how to overcome barriers to business model innovation
Renew. Energy
Entrepreneurial logics for a technology of foolishness
Scand. J. Manag.
How renewables will change electricity markets in the next five years
Energy Policy
The economics of energy service contracts
Energy Policy
Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: the Naturhouse case
Long. Range Plan.
Profiting from negawatts: reducing absolute consumption and emissions through a performance-based energy economy
Energy Policy
Effective corporate tax rates the effect of size, capital intensity, leverage, and other factors
J. Account. Public Policy
The Energy Services Company (ESCo) as business model for heat entrepreneurship - a case study of North Karelia
Finland Energy Policy
Business models, business strategy and innovation
Long. Range Plan.
Servitization of business: adding value by adding services
Eur. Manag. J.
An international survey of the energy service company (ESCO) industry
Energy Policy
Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text and Cases
Value creation in e-business
Strat. Manag. J.
The servitization of manufacturing: a review of literature and reflection on future challenges
J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.
Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness
Acad. Manag. J.
Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?
Acad. Manag. Rev.
Services marketing is different
Business
Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore
Strategy Leadersh.
Bringing open innovation to services
MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.
The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin‐off companies
Ind. Corp. Chang.
The Innovator's Dilemma
Cited by (65)
Climate policy uncertainty and firm-level total factor productivity: Evidence from China
2022, Energy EconomicsCitation Excerpt :For capital-intensive industries, the transformation cost of companies with heavy asset equipment is higher than that of others. What's more, increased CPU also has implications for capital-intensive industries in terms of production efficiency, as policy uncertainty can be expected to affect the speed of energy upgrading, thereby placing increased production pressures on these industries (Helms, 2016). As technology-intensive industries are not directly affected by climate change, the negative effect of CPU on their TFP is significantly lower than that of the other three categories.
The role of ERP in business model innovation: Impetus or impediment
2022, Digital BusinessSustainable energy systems in the making: A study on business model adaptation in incumbent utilities
2022, Technological Forecasting and Social Change